Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The regulator concludes that it was impossible to attract enough qualified investigators. As support, the regulator says that the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that they did not have 500 qualified applicants.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The regulator responds to the legislator’s accusation that the regulation agency purposely limited hiring by highlighting new information that impacts the hiring process. The information raised by the regulator about the low starting salaries provides an alternate explanation that weakens the legislator’s argument. The new information suggests that it was the low salaries, rather than malice by the regulators, that explains the fact that no more than 400 regulators were hired.
A
shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
The regulator does not shift blame for the sandals. The regulator does not discuss who is responsible for the scandals referenced by the legislator.
B
providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by the legislator
The regulator provides new information about the low starting salaries for the positions that challenges the legislator’s conclusion that the low hiring numbers were a result of the regulator’s desire to hide the scandals.
C
claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
The regulator does not address what would have happened if the agency actually had hired 500 investigators. The regulator doesn’t say whether or not that would have been a sufficient response.
D
rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
The legislator’s conclusion is that the regulator purposely limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed; the regulator does not rephrase this conclusion at all. The regulator gives a different conclusion.
E
showing that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory
The regulator does not show that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory; the regulator raises new information that weakens the legislator’s argument.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Scientists hypothesize that when a hornworm’s first meal is from a nightshade, its taste receptors become habituated to indioside D, and afterward anything without indioside D doesn’t taste good. This is based on the fact that newly hatched hornworms that first feed on nightshades don’t eat leaves from non-nightshades afterward, whereas newly hatched hornworms that first feed on non-nightshades are open to eating non-nightshades afterward.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there isn’t another explanation for the observed diet patterns of hornworms. For example, what if there’s some other chemical besides indioside D that might be the reason hornworms that eat nightshades prefer nightshades and don’t eat non-nightshades? Or what if the hornworms don’t necessarily care about the taste of nightshades, but become physically addicted to it, without regard to taste?
A
Tobacco hornworms that first fed on nightshade leaves show no preference for any one variety of nightshade plant over any other.
We’re concerned with the consumption of nightshades vs. non-nightshades. Preferences or the lack of preferences within the nightshades has no clear impact.
B
If taste receptors are removed from tobacco hornworms that first fed on nightshade leaves, those hornworms will subsequently feed on other leaves.
This corroborates the theory that taste receptors are part of the explanation for the observed diet patterns.
C
Tobacco hornworm eggs are most commonly laid on nightshade plants.
Where the eggs are laid has no clear impact. We’re concerned with the diet patterns of newly hatched nightshades and what explains the distaste for non-nightshades among the worms that first feed on nightshades.
D
Indioside D is not the only chemical that occurs only in nightshade plants.
This weakens the argument by suggesting there may be another chemical responsible for the worms’ preference for nightshades after first feeding on nightshades.
E
The taste receptors of the tobacco hornworm have physiological reactions to several naturally occurring chemicals.
This doesn’t help connect taste receptors to habituation to nightshades or to the chemical indioside D. We also don’t know the significance of a “physiological reaction.” Does that mean the worms can taste chemicals? We don’t know.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
After analyzing recent traffic fatality statistics, why are auto safety experts worried about the increasing popularity of SUVs, even though SUVs are safer for their occupants in accidents than smaller vehicles?
Objective
The correct answer should provide some key information about the safety of the occupants of other vehicles that are in accidents with SUVs, rather than just the safety of the SUV occupants. This would explain why SUV popularity is worrisome, even though SUVs are safer for their occupants in an accident.
A
Vehicles with a reputation for being safer than others tend to be driven more carefully than other vehicles.
This doesn’t tell us about the safety of the other drivers who are in an accident with an SUV. It undermines the auto safety experts’ conclusion even further by saying that SUVs are not only safer for their occupants but are also driven more carefully than other vehicles.
B
Vehicles with a high average fuel consumption have fuel tanks with larger capacities.
We don’t know what tank capacity has to do with safety, and (B) tells us nothing about the safety of other occupants who are in an accident with an SUV. So it doesn’t do anything to explain why auto safety experts are worried about the increasing popularity of SUVs.
C
Recent statistics suggest that large vehicles such as SUVs tend to carry more passengers than smaller vehicles do.
This only tells us about the occupants of an SUV. We already know that SUV passengers are safer, so we need some information about the occupants of other cars to explain why SUV popularity is cause for concern.
D
Recent statistics suggest that the average number of fatalities in collisions between SUVs and smaller vehicles is higher than for other collisions.
This is the only answer that gives information about the safety of other occupants in accidents with SUVs. Because fatalities are higher in a collision between an SUV and a smaller vehicle than for other collisions, it is concerning that SUVs are getting more popular.
E
Recent statistics suggest that SUVs are as likely to be involved in collisions as smaller vehicles are.
This gives no information about the safety of occupants of smaller vehicles. Even if SUVs are just as likely to be in accidents, we know that SUV occupants are safer in accidents. So, (E) does not help to explain the auto safety experts’ concern.